Slow down, you move too fast!

[Guy Profumo]

The clown wing of the motoring lobby are going to have a field day with this one...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rural-speed-limits-may-be-reduced-to-50mph-1640157.html

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Why 50? Why not 40? Even a head-on-collision between two cars doing 40 represents an 80mph impact, which is still likely to be fatal for some or all of the occupants of the two vehicles, even if wearing seatbelts.

The aftermath scenes of the typical "country lane crash kills four teenagers" story, where what remains of the vehicle ends up hundreds of yards into a field on its roof, betrays the fact that many of these accidents were not the result of people carfeully and soberly observing the existnig 60mph limit as it is.

[Wyatt Earp]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Well, before we sound off either way, what are the numbers? Is it really just reckless drivers who ignore the limit anyway who get into accidents? What proportion is drivers more or less observing the limit but (say) getting into problems overtaking?

I suspect, but don't know, that the best approach would be to maintain the limit of 60 on sufficiently wide A-roads, but reduce in on minor roads, and reduce it sharply on the kind of road that's too narrow for a central stripe. It's slightly crazy that it's 60 on those.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Is it really just reckless drivers who ignore the limit anyway who get into accidents?

Depends on your definition of "reckless", I suppose. One of my Uncles once put his car through a hedge instictively swerving to avoid a deer that had run out in front of him at night on a road like this, and broke his leg. He was going along at about 50, he reckoned (I still remember him saying about what happened 'all I saw - immediately - were two eyes in my headlights, and something in me shouted "christ, is that a child?"). One could argue that it was "reckless" to ignore the possible hazard that was about to befall him, but would anyone think of that? It's like a tyre bursting on the motorway; it's going to happen to you, one day, but it doesn't stop you careering along at 70mph listening to the radio.

[Guy Profumo]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Wa ayat al Urbi wrote:

Well, before we sound off either way, what are the numbers? Is it really just reckless drivers who ignore the limit anyway who get into accidents? What proportion is drivers more or less observing the limit but (say) getting into problems overtaking?

I suspect, but don't know, that the best approach would be to maintain the limit of 60 on sufficiently wide A-roads, but reduce in on minor roads, and reduce it sharply on the kind of road that's too narrow for a central stripe. It's slightly crazy that it's 60 on those.

Which is exactly what is being proposed.

[Wyatt Earp]

Slow down, you move too fast!

That's not what it says in the piece, it says "most single-carriageway roads"; that is, most roads with no central reservation. That seems more sweeping.

[Guy Profumo]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Wa ayat al Urbi wrote:

That's not what it says in the piece, it says "most single-carriageway roads"; that is, most roads with no central reservation. That seems more sweeping.

No. It says that where roads justify the higher limit, then the higher limit will be the one utilized.

Most sigle carriageway roads tend to have enough bends, slower traffic, and built up areas on them anyway that tearing from one braking manouevre to the next at 60mph isn't going to make much difference if you're travelling at t 50 anyway.

[Wyatt Earp]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Where does it say that?

[Guy Profumo]

Slow down, you move too fast!

A little research reveals...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5870886.ece

The lower limit would apply automatically unless the local authority could prove that it was safe for the road to remain at 60mph.

From the indies take on this...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rural-speed-limits-may-be-reduced-to-50mph-1640157.html

In 2007, there were 2,946 deaths and 30,000 serious injuries on the roads. Speed was deemed a factor in 29 per cent. The Government is holding a consultation on the plan, which is likely to be widely opposed.

And here's what's stopping the authorities from taking up your proposal, they've got to wait for people to be killed before taking any action...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5877192.ece

Ms Villiers doesn't understand the problem. Local authorities would love to reduce speed limits on a great number of roads, but they are hampered by bureaucracy. Whenever they want to designate a limit on a rural road lower than the default 60mph they must justify it through accident statistics. It may be obvious that motorists are driving too fast on a stretch of road, but a council must wait for the required number of people to be killed or injured before it can take any action. And even when, finally, sufficient coffins have been filled to justify a speed limit on a rural road, it remains legal to drive along surrounding lanes at 60mph, giving reckless motorists an incentive to divert on to even more dangerous rat-runs.

[Wyatt Earp]

Slow down, you move too fast!

I'm completely baffled now.

1. I suggested an idea I thought was less sweeping than this plan.

2. You said it was the same as the plan.

3. I said that this wasn't what the piece in the Indy said.

4. You said it was.

5. I asked where?

6. You've found a quote from somewhere completely different which, as I read it, suggests my idea of keeping 60 on wide A-roads is less sweeping than the government's plan, which seems to be a default reduction.

Now, I'm sorry to be testy, but what exactly's going on here? Is there some sort of axe being ground? My idea may well be bollocks, and the government's plan may be far better (as I say, I don't really know), but they're different. What mileage (ha ha) is there in acting as you have been on this thread?

[The Exploding Vole]

Slow down, you move too fast!

Why do speed limits have to end in a zero or a five? Couldn't they more precise - 53 mph here, 61 mph there?